Re: What Matriarchy?
Paul Connelly (email@example.com)
Fri, 02 Aug 1996 03:02:47 -0500
In article <AkLAy0O5IgSX084yn@teleport.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (Larry
> At the moment women have more political power than ever before in
> history, and probably pre-history too. You certainly can't call
> modern society a matriarchate as a whole, though there are areas
> where men don't have much influence.
Maybe the issue is, does every type of society have to be an "-archy"
of one sort or another? Have any historical societies not been some
sort of "-archy"?
I'd be more interested in hearing the answer to that than hearing
whether someone found a "matriarchy" on the Isle of Erewhon.
It could be that any "-archy" will always be male-dominated,
meaning perhaps that "-archy" is primarily a "guy thing". But
is every social group based on "rule" by some (probably male)
subset of the group? Or are there societies where who "rules" is
not so clear, and perhaps our perception of which is force-fitted
into the familiar "-archy" model that we're accustomed to? Do we
lose the subtleties of some social orders by assuming "-archy"?
Ut ibi arduum cursum angelorum perficiam